This paper makes a case for a refined look at the so- called âfallacy of hasty generalizationâ by arguing that this expression is an umbrella term for two fallacies already distinguished by Aristotle. One is the fallacy of generalizing in an inappropriate way from a particular instance to a universal generalization containing a âfor all xâ quantification. The other is the secundum quid (âin a certain respectâ) fallacy of moving to a conclusion that is supposed to be a universal generalization containing a âfor all xâ quantification while overlooking qualifications that have to be added to the more limited kind of generalization expressed in the premise. It is shown that these two fallacies relate to two different kinds of generalization